"Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) are joining with Engel at 1 p.m. to call to Obama to "invoke the 14th Amendment in the absence of a bipartisan agreement agreement to raise the debt ceiling and avoid national default," according to their press release.

The group also picked a symbolic location to deliver their message: the corner of Constitution Ave and 14th St."

Looks like the Dems have abandoned their raise in taxes for the wealthiest, apparently only effecting those who declare over $315,000 after all deductions in any noticeable way, and a group that's seen their incomes rise steeply.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

"Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) are joining with Engel at 1 p.m. to call to Obama to "invoke the 14th Amendment in the absence of a bipartisan agreement agreement to raise the debt ceiling and avoid national default," according to their press release.

The group also picked a symbolic location to deliver their message: the corner of Constitution Ave and 14th St."

Looks like the Dems have abandoned their raise in taxes for the wealthiest, apparently only effecting those who declare over $315,000 after all deductions in any noticeable way, and a group that's seen their incomes rise steeply.

Link?

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Former President Bill Clinton has said he would invoke that option "without hesitation" and leave it to the courts to figure it out.

UPDATE: 3:35 p.m. -- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney again ruled out the possibility of Obama using the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt dispute.

"Our position hasn't changed," Carney said during his Wednesday briefing. "There are no off-ramps. ... Only Congress has the legal authority."

UPDATE: 5:20 p.m. -- Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and a handful of other Democrats are holding a Thursday press conference to urge Obama to use the 14th Amendment as a back-up option.

What was particularly interesting though was this tidbit:

Quote:

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) acknowledged that Obama has previously expressed doubts about his legal authority to unilaterally raise the debt limit. But circumstances have changed, Larson said, and "we just want to let him know that his Caucus is prepared to stand behind him" if Congress fails to pass a long-term deal.

He is fully prepared to delegate his responsibility to the president and further throw the balance of power over to the executive branch.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

The Democrats are compromising like crazy left and right, pissing off their own base with regard to the budget deal proposals. The Republicans won't give a fucking inch. They can piss off, frankly. Fuck, I bet many of them want to simply default--a bad economy hurts Obama's chances at reelection. Mitch McConnell actually admitted that his number one goal as Senate Minority Leader is to make sure Obama doesn't get reelected--not to help turn the economy around, balance the budget, fix the country...nope, just prevent the Democrat from getting a second term. What an asshole.

Actually, no. They cannot simply piss off. That is partially what got us here to begin with. The inability to stand their ground and get a proper budget passed in the first place. this kicking the can down the road attitude has to stop or all the social programs, all the entitlements and all the government programs you are so fond of will come crashing down. Take the time to do it right, even if it hurts!

At this point, I could care less who is elected president if the fiscal house is not brought into order.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Barack Obamas political genius is his ability to say things that sound good to people who have not followed the issues in any detail regardless of how obviously fraudulent what he says is to those who have.

Quote:

President Obamas big pitch in his Monday-night televised talk was that what is needed to deal with the national-debt crisis is a balanced approach not just spending cuts, but revenue increases as well.

What could sound more reasonable especially to those who have not been following what Obama has actually been doing? This is the same Barack Obama who, earlier this year, called for a clean increase in the national-debt ceiling.

In this context, the soothing word clean referred to an increase in the national-debt ceiling without any provisos. That is, no spending cuts at all. In other words, a blank check to keep spending. How balanced is that?

Quote:

While Obama seldom misses an opportunity to blame his problems on the situation he inherited from President Bush, he says nothing about all the hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus money he inherited from the Bush administration.

Quote:

Nevertheless, Obama is an accomplished master at playing the blame game. Having gotten all the political credit for the money he has showered on his favorites from coast to coast, he now seeks to share the blame for the resulting financial crisis with Republicans, by maneuvering them into a position where they have to help solve the debt crisis that Obama created.

Quote:

However one might criticize President Obamas policies in terms of their effect on the American economy, those policies can turn out to be very successful in the terms that matter most to him namely, his own reelection.

I suppose WalMarts upped it's pricing so much because it's paying very close to the full corporate tax rate?-

"Before taxes, the world's largest retailer banked $22.1 billion in profit. After deductions and factoring in its international operations, the company still paid just under a third of that back in taxes to various governments.

The Uk has VAT (value added tax) and an income tax. VAT is at 20%. Add just 3% for your unbelievably titled "Fair Tax" and you'll have to massively cut programs... you know, like defense and education, healthcare etc whilst making the poor and middle class pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes whilst the rich pay a much much lower percentage of theirs in taxes.

Can you prove that in some way? Remember that almost half of our population pays nothing in taxes now. They cannot avoid them under the Fair Tax system.

As for how much income goes to taxes, I agree. But remember, all withholding would stop. Someone grossing $2800 a month and bringing home $2000 a month would immediately start bringing home $2800 a month (or close to it). That's just one advantage. One of the others is that the tax cannot be avoided. I don't think you're really getting into the numbers here. The poor and middle class would be better off and could decide where to put their money.

Quote:

Like the info from posts above shows, the bottom 50% income earners in the US currently pay just 2.5% of their income in taxes. Do you think they save much? Nope they don't. They spend what thy have and often get into debt too. The rich on the other hand invest, save and many lavishly live, but that expenditure is a small piece of their income.

The 2.5% number is debatable, though I do take your overall point. The problem we have is that nearly 50% of all Americans pay nothing in taxes. How can that be? Imagine the lost revenue.

Quote:

The rich would do great, the middle and lower would suffer, the debt would never be paid off and the economy would TANK.

Correction: the average income tax rate is about 2.5% for the lowest 50% income earners according to the earlier posted figures. The total tax rate for that group is somewhere around 10%. That's more than half yhe 23% figure of the "Fair Tax" and obviously the poorer ones in that group will pay even less of a percentage.

Yes, but with the Fair Tax, they don't automatically pay. They only pay on what they purchase. In that vein, we could exempt certain necessities like food, clothing and shelter. I disagree that the economy would tank and that middle and lower income brackets would suffer. If I plug in my own numbers, the results are astoundingly positive. And I am upper-middle income.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It says a lot about you that would like such big cuts to the poor before all or even any of your magical Ron Paul type policies, like cutting regulation will have come into effect that you claim will reduce poverty. Very telling indeed.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

It says a lot about you that would like such big cuts to the poor before all or even any of your magical Ron Paul type policies, like cutting regulation will have come into effect that you claim will reduce poverty. Very telling indeed.

What's very telling is how you like to simplistically characterize my positions and continue to beg the question on "big cuts to the poor."

Can you prove that in some way? Remember that almost half of our population pays nothing in taxes now. They cannot avoid them under the Fair Tax system.

As for how much income goes to taxes, I agree. But remember, all withholding would stop. Someone grossing $2800 a month and bringing home $2000 a month would immediately start bringing home $2800 a month (or close to it). That's just one advantage. One of the others is that the tax cannot be avoided. I don't think you're really getting into the numbers here. The poor and middle class would be better off and could decide where to put their money.

The 2.5% number is debatable, though I do take your overall point. The problem we have is that nearly 50% of all Americans pay nothing in taxes. How can that be? Imagine the lost revenue.

Yes, but with the Fair Tax, they don't automatically pay. They only pay on what they purchase. In that vein, we could exempt certain necessities like food, clothing and shelter. I disagree that the economy would tank and that middle and lower income brackets would suffer. If I plug in my own numbers, the results are astoundingly positive. And I am upper-middle income.

I'll get back to you on this later. I just don't have time right now. But your point that the bottom 50% don't pay taxes is way off. They pay much more in sales and local taxes as a percentage of their income than the wealthier do. I posted figures on this recently which I'll try and dig up.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The Circle of Protection, led by Jim Wallis and his George Soros-funded Sojourners group, is advancing a false narrative based on vague threats to the most vulnerable if we finally take the first tentative steps to fix our grave budget and debt problems. For example, Wallis frequently cites cuts to federal food programs as portending dire consequences to hungry and poor people.

Sounds like someone we know.

Quote:

Which programs? He must have missed the General Accountability Office study on government waste released this spring, which looked at, among others, 18 federal food programs. These programs accounted for $62.5 billion in spending in 2008 for food and nutrition assistance. But only seven of the programs have actually been evaluated for effectiveness. Apparently it is enough to simply launch a government program, and the bureaucracy to sustain it, to get the Circle of Protection activists to sanctify it without end. Never mind that it might not be a good use of taxpayer dollars.

It is also telling that the groups advertised Evangelical, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, African-American, and Latino Christian leaders who are so concerned about the poor and vulnerable in the current budget negotiations have so little to say about private charity, which approached $300 billion last year. To listen to them talk, it is as if a prudent interest in reining in deficits and limiting government waste, fraud, and bloat would leave Americas poor on the brink of starvation. It is as if bureaucratic solutions, despite the overwhelming evidence of the welfare states pernicious effects on the family, are the only ones available to faith communities.This is even stranger for a group of people who are called to love the neighbor first and last with a personal commitment.

Quote:

The actions of Wallis and the co-signers of the Circle of Protection are only understandable in light of political, not primarily religious, aims. Wallis, after all, has been serving as self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee and recently met with administration officials to help them craft faith-friendly talking points for the 2012 election. And when Wallis emerged from that White House meeting, he crowed that almost every pulpit in America is linked to the Circle of Protection so it would be a powerful thing if our pulpits could be linked to the bully pulpit here.

Think about that for a moment. Imagine if a pastor had emerged from a meeting with President George W. Bush and made the same statement. I can just imagine the howls of Theocracy! and Christian dominionism! that would echo from the mobs of Birkenstock-shod, tie-dyed, and graying church activists who would immediately assemble at the White House fence to protest such a blurring of Church and State.

But in the moral calculus of Jim Wallis and his Circle of Protection supporters, theres no problem with prostrating yourself, your Church, and your aid organization before Caesar. As long as hes on your side of the partisan divide.

Actually, no. They cannot simply piss off. That is partially what got us here to begin with. The inability to stand their ground and get a proper budget passed in the first place. this kicking the can down the road attitude has to stop or all the social programs, all the entitlements and all the government programs you are so fond of will come crashing down. Take the time to do it right, even if it hurts!

At this point, I could care less who is elected president if the fiscal house is not brought into order.

Cutting services while keeping tax rates the same is effectively a tax hike. If you are standing still and a car is coming at you at 30mph, it's the same as if you were traveling 30mph away from a car approaching at 60mph...the relative velocity is still the same.

And even if you do cut taxes, if the cut in services is disproportionately higher, it's still an effective tax increase.

America wants a balanced approach. Look at the polls. Republicans are making the poor and middle classes chip in, but won't make the rich who actually can afford it do anything? FUCK THAT.

When Clinton left office, our budget was balanced and we were paying down the debt. Two wars, an unfunded prescription drug policy, and huge tax cuts to the rich later...we're fucked. Bush broke the vase. Republicans get angry if you point that out.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

People need to stop fantasizing that they're going to get much more tax revenue from the rich. It's not going to happen.

Yeah you'd rather bleed the poor and middle class we know.

"Maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will only add to that problem. We estimate, using Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Tax projections, that maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will directly reduce revenues by about $690 billion over the next 10 years.* But the true cost of those tax cuts is actually a bit bigger than that.

The cost of those tax cuts is going to go straight onto our national credit card unless we raise taxes from everyone else to pay for the $690 billion in tax breaks for the rich or we find $690 billion in spending cuts. And that means increased interest payments on the debt. When we add in the costs of additional debt service, the true price of maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy jumps by almost $140 billion.** In total, keeping those cuts for the rich will cost almost $830 billion over the next 10 years."
~ http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...ts_expire.html

Add into the mix that cutting billions from average and poor Americans programs takes that wealth out of the economy so you get lower GDP, because the money isn't spent on goods, services, housing etc. Cut pell grants, cut renewable energy...it's like a fucking horror movie.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

You only "know" this in you imagination. I want everyone to stop getting robbed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Add into the mix that cutting billions from average and poor Americans programs takes that wealth out of the economy so you get lower GDP, because the money isn't spent on goods, services, housing etc.

I don't think you understand what "not going to happen" means in this context. It doesn't matter what he wants, it does not matter what law gets passed.

You can't get any more tax money from the rich. If you raise taxes, rich people will change their behavior to avoid taxes, it will not result in more revenue. Back in the 1960s and 1970s when the top marginal tax was very high, revenue/gdp was lower.

I don't think you understand what "not going to happen" means in this context. It doesn't matter what he wants, it does not matter what law gets passed.

You can't get any more tax money from the rich. If you raise taxes, rich people will change their behavior to avoid taxes, it will not result in more revenue. Back in the 1960s and 1970s when the top marginal tax was very high, revenue/gdp was lower.

Bingo! Nailed it. Give this man a prize. He gets it. BTW...this is true for the non-rich also...just to a much lesser extent. The rich have much more flexibility and resources to adjust to these changes.

The rich would of course end up paying more taxes. Taxes gain revenue, that's what their for. That's why the CBO says the revenue from Bush's taxes will be $600 billion plus down over 10 yrs. The rich even with their top dollar tax experts couldn't scheme their way out of it. That's why the repubs are trying so hard to extend them for the top two percent. If they didn't matter because the rich would wiggle their way out of them, they wouldn't give a damn, would they?

If you cut taxes the GDP can of course increase, but if you give tax cuts to the wealthiest who won't spend it on goods and services for the most part and take money from average and lower levels who will spend it on goods and services, you slow down GDP. $800 billion being spent is far better for the economy than $800 billion in the top 2% where maybe 20% or so of it will be spent. Besides, some of us actually want everyone to get healthcare and have a roof over their heads. Fuck, people die for America and parents watch their children die for America and they fucking deserve fucking healthcare and fucking educationmand a fucking food stamps if they ain't got shit because there jobs gone off to China.

Look what's happened in the UK. The government has taken billions out in programs and the GDP growth has fallen almost to 0%. If you want to solve the debt problem, ease up on cuts to programs for the poor and middle class and increase the taxes on those who are swimming in millions.

It's really all pointless arguing about though. The only person here who's ever changed their mind on anything that I'm aware of is jazzguru on eugenics.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

That's why the CBO says the revenue from Bush's taxes will be $600 billion plus down over 10 yrs.

These estimates usually assume a lot...particularly static behavior. This is a fundamental error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

The rich even with their top dollar tax experts couldn't scheme their way out of it.

Of course they can...and they will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

That's why the repubs are trying so hard to extend them for the top two percent. If they didn't matter because the rich would wiggle their way out of them, they wouldn't give a damn, would they?

No, it's because they understand something that liberals and Democrats seems genetically incapable of understanding: More time, energy and effort will go into tax avoidance than into productive economic activity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

If you cut taxes the GDP can of course increase, but if you give tax cuts to the wealthiest who won't spend it on goods and services for the most part and take money from average and lower levels who will spend it on goods and services, you slow down GDP. $800 billion being spent is far better for the economy than $800 billion in the top 2% where maybe 20% or so of it will be spent.

You clearly have no idea how the economy works and this statement (assuming you actually believe what you wrote) proves it. It is investment in production that grows the economy. This is what the rich do at a far higher rate than lower income levels. Production is the real engine of the economy, not consumption. This is a counter-intuitive concept, and it doesn't look that way (at first glance and superficial analysis) but it is true. It's like this: From a physical volume perspective the engine of your car is a small percentage of the total volume of the car (e.g., the body, frame, interior, trunk, etc.)...but it is the engine that makes it all go. The engine is the production-oriented aspects of the economy. The rest of the car is the consumption-oriented aspects of the economy. Oh and taxes and regulations? These are speed bumps, bad/cheap/low octane gasoline and debris on the road.

The rich focus on production and invest in production. Lower income and wealth levels tend to focus entirely on consumption.

Of course it's great that someone focuses on production, because it ends up creating tons of wonderful goods and services available for consumption for the consumption class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Besides, some of us actually want everyone to get healthcare and have a roof over their heads.

I'll bet all of us want that. I know I do. But the path liberals and Democrats tend to take won't get their. Good intentions cannot overcome economic reality.

These estimates usually assume a lot...particularly static behavior. This is a fundamental error.

Of course they can...and they will.

No, it's because they understand something that liberals and Democrats seems genetically incapable of understanding: More time, energy and effort will go into tax avoidance than into productive economic activity.

You really have no idea how the economy works and this statement (assuming you actually believe what you wrote) proves it. It is investment in production that grows the economy. This is what the rich do at a far higher rate than lower income levels.

I'll bet all of us want that. I know I do. But the path liberals and Democrats tend to take won't get their. Good intentions cannot overcome economic reality.

The problem with arguing with you mj is that your positions aren't reflective of facts. There's no "well yes that's true but..." even, like in regards to tax revenues or GDP from tax cuts or government cuts. It's all one way with you, simplified beyond belief and severely wrong. You'd do much better to face the facts, facts say that CBO do look at, facts that economists and governments across the globe do look at and seeing the consequences of things for how they actually happen, not just for how you'd like them to happen.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The problem with arguing with you mj is that your positions aren't reflective of facts.

And you're saying that so doesn't make it true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

It's all one way with you, simplified beyond belief and severely wrong.

Well, the concepts actually are pretty simple. In the end it is fairly straightforward economics. Admittedly some things are a little counter-intuitive and more challenging to understand...most of it is fairly simple conceptually. It's sad that you cannot seem to understand them. And, no, they're not wrong.

I'll get back to you on this later. I just don't have time right now. But your point that the bottom 50% don't pay taxes is way off. They pay much more in sales and local taxes as a percentage of their income than the wealthier do. I posted figures on this recently which I'll try and dig up.

Let's talk about the Boehner plan. My take is that it's far from perfect, but is probably the best the GOP can hope for right now. It's a plan with no tax increases and some spending cuts. It's not a long-term solution, but right now we also need to focus on the immediate debt ceiling problem. The issue I see with Cut, Cap and Balance right now is that while it sounds like an excellent idea (and I'd argue a long overdue plan), it has zero chance of passing the Senate, much less being signed. So:

What do you think of the Boehner plan?

Do you support a balanced budget amendment and the Cut, Cap and Balance bill?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

At our farm, everything was kept inside the company during high tax years like the 1960s. All the family members were employees, houses were owned by the company, no dividends were issued, etc. Once the taxes went down, it was safe to issue dividends again. It gets even better if the company is offshore, like in Australia, then you are safe no matter what tax law gets passed.

When Clinton left office, our budget was balanced and we were paying down the debt. Two wars, an unfunded prescription drug policy, and huge tax cuts to the rich later...we're fucked. Bush broke the vase. Republicans get angry if you point that out.

Don't they though.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

If they don't get a debt limit increase, do you guys think interest rates on treasuries will go up or down? I can see both arguments - interest rates go up because they are riskier assets, and interest rates go down because people get scared and cash out of stocks.

nvidea - this is not sh1t hitting the fan, wake me when something goes down 10% or something. They didn't get the votes for Boehner's plan, he had stiff opposition .